Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Dushyant Dave has written two strongly worded letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu opposing the proposed elevation of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Mohit Shah to the Supreme Court.

Dave, who hails from Gujarat, has opposed Shah’s elevation to the Supreme Court on the ground that “his conduct was wholly unbecoming of a judge and…lowered . . .

O M G. If allegations are true then how can he continue as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. Does that mean that he is fit to be Chief Justice of a High Court and unfit to be Judge of Supreme Court. OMG….LOL.

If the highest Judiciary can have this type of tainted people then we can imagine how our Justice system would be. Indian Justice System is already very corrupt and slowest among world. And now we have such type of people in Judiciary, totally hopeless since it’s all government regulated who themselves are corrupted and appoint corrupted people to save them in future. On one side India is fighting against corruption and on another side Government is appointing this people. God Bless India

Its shameful that such things are being said about a judge like the Chief Justice of Bombay. Mr. Dave being a Senior Advocate himself ought to have been more responsible. There are appropriate authorities before whom such grievances are to be raised. The Chief Justice of India is not the authority. If Mr. Dave open’s the Constitution of India he will know where he should have made his representation. The Chief Justice of Bombay has been subjected to a witch hunt for some reason. The Supreme Court (read the collegium led by Kabir) alleged that he was counter-productive and therefore refused to elavate him to the SC. But in a few weeks after that, we found out that such press released were issued because The Chief Justice of Bombay had opposed the appointment of a relative of the then CJI.
It goes without saying that the present allegations are also made with some hidden agenda.

Its unfortunate that the machinery established under the Constitution is not set in motion and wild allegations are made against truly Honourable judges of High Courts. If a judge is corrupt, impeach him; if he is not, do not malign him.

To DR. PRANAB MUKHERJEE, The President of India, New Delhi.
To SHRI H.L. DATTU, The Chief Justice of India, New Delhi.
To SENIOR ADV. DUSHYANT DAVE, President, The Supreme Court Bar Association, New Delhi
And All Recipients

The undersigned, Founder and President of Litigants Welfare Forum, Bombay, since 1990, supports Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave’s two succinct and well-documented letters of 6th and 11th February 2015, addressed to Shri H.L.Dattu, the Chief Justice of India, opposing Shri Mohit Shah’s elevation to the Supreme Court of India.

[…..]
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and others receiving copies of this frank and fearless letter should note that the Supreme Court of India at its Full Court Meeting (consisting of S.C.Agrawal, A.S.Anand, S.P. Bharucha, P.S.Mishra and D.P.Mohapatra), held on December 15, 1999 to consider the Report of the Committee on “In-House Procedure” devised to take suitable remedial action against the Judges who, by their acts or omission or commission, do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial Life including in the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, dated October 31, 1997, unanimously adopted the Report of the Committee. The amended Para 5 of the Report, as applicable, reads: “5(i) After such inquiry the Committee may conclude and report to the CJI that (b) there is sufficient substance in the allegations contained in the complaint and the mis-conduct disclosed is so serious that it calls for initiation of proceedings for removal of the Judge….” ……….

Rise up Citizens, Journalists, Activists, Advocates, Collegium Members of the SCI, all high Political Functionaries like the PM, VP, President of India.

Speaking of the order passed in Essar, a Judge of any court subordinate to the Supreme Court is always subject to a higher forum reversing his/her judgment. So, unless Mr. Dave is suggesting that every judgment coming from a High Court judge should always only be upheld by the Supreme Court, we probably might not need the Supreme Court. And what about Supreme Court decisions that sometimes may not appear to be correct – is it necessary that those are tainted by corruption?

[……….]

I agree with BOMBAY LAWYER – if the judge is corrupt, impeach him, but if there is no proof of corruption, don’t malign him.

A word of advise (unwanted, as it may be) for Mr. Dave – sit on that high chair…you might want to run away! Empty vessels always make the most noise…

Mr. Dave has sent shock waves by writing letter to the CJI regarding possible elevation of Justice Shah. He has also written against bench hunting earlier.

But he has possibly been a party to efforts to change the bench hearing Teesta;s anticipatory bail. Whether Teesta is entitled for anticipatory bail or not is not the issue here.

But the unprecedented manner in which events have unfolded in the Teesta case may leave the people wondering as to whether any other citizen seeking anticipatory bail will get the same attention from the Supreme Court. In the midst of the proceedings in the CJI court, Mr. Sibal interrupted to make a mention about Teesta’s anticipatory bail application and an interim protection was granted instantly. Had it been an anticipatory bail of any common person mentioned by any other non-celebrity lawyer, would the Supreme Court have entertained it in the same manner? Anticipatory bail is sought by a person when he is evading arrest and Teesta was evading arresting, there was no extreme urgency to grant an interim order on mere mentioning. It could wait till next day.
The matter was then placed before Court no.4 and several advocates including Sri Dave joined chorus with Sri Sibbal in favour of Teesta and the judges rightly snubbed them from politicising the issue, however, they granted interim protection. Mr. Sibal, Mr.Dave and some others appearing with them felt uneasy before the court.
Two days before the hearing of the case, an Article published in the Times of India written by an activist lawyer whose biased views against the Gujarat Govt. is well known. He made insinuations against the judges and tried to make out a case in favour of Teesta.
I have a legitimate fear that that had the same article or letters been written by some ordinary person or lawyer, he could face serious consequences.
Lo and behold! the next evening, in an unprecedented manner, the bench hearing the Teesta matter was changed by the CJI. The Times of India openly claimed it as the effect of Article published. So is it true that the Supreme Court is media driven?
I wonder, Whether it can also be termed as bench hunting or avoiding a bench perceived unfavourable? Teesta getting bail is insignificant here, she may well be entitled. However, the important question is when will the common citizen sans engagement of celebrity lawyers and powerful media presence will get the same compassion and indulgence from the Highest Court?